In terms of grammar I would say it's a proposition. But if you want to define a proposition as a truth-apt sentence, then non-cognitivists would say that it isn't.

You mean the statement "You should love everyone" is a proposition? (in light of the fact that propositions are not (always) truth-apt sentences? Thanks!

You should love everyone is a proposition. But it's not an imperative sentence. "Love everyone" is an imperative sentence, and it is not a proposition.

In English, the imperative sentence starts with a verb, followed by a predicate, and the pronoun of the person of the sentence is never included. The imperative sentence applies only to the second person; both in plural and in singular.

This is also an imperative sentence:

"Gerry, please, do love everyone." Here the noun is named, but it is not part of the imperative sentence, instead, it is a sentence fragment of a clause.

Is the statement "You should love everyone" a proposition? Or rather, is the statement "Bob states you should love everyone" a proposition? — jancanc

Try this:

Propositional content: S loves everyone, S = "you" (the addressee)
Propositional attitude: B intends (desires, recommends, commands...) that "S loves everyone"

Or again:

"Pass the salt"
Content: S passes the salt
Attitude: Bob intends "S passes the salt"

We know what state of affairs is intended, how the addressee is involved in the intended state of affairs, and what attitude Bob has with respect to that state of affairs. It's on the basis of this understanding that we respond coherently to each other's imperatives. Seems clear that we can analyze imperatives in terms of propositional content and propositional attitude along such lines.

We may want to distinguish between the "internal" attitude that Bob has with respect to the proposition, and any attitude said to be involved in the speech act he uses. Bob wants you to love everyone and wants you to pass the salt, Bob urges you to love everyone and requests that you pass the salt.


On the other hand, if a statement must be an assertion, then on the surface it may seem doubtful whether imperative sentences like "Love everyone" and "Pass the salt" count as statements. It seems reasonable to suppose that such sentences may be characterized as entailing assertions constructed in terms of propositional content, propositional attitude, and speech act.

I, Bob, desire that you, S, pass the salt, and thus request that you pass the salt.


In all these analyses, the proposition at the heart of each case is the proposition the speaker aims to bring about by speaking. The speaker does not assert that p is the case, but rather uses speech as a means to make p the case.

That p is the proposition he has in mind.

It's a p-attitude. If there's factual evidence then it's a proposition motivated by a p-attitude.

"You should love everyone" — jancanc

This is a proposition because it has a truth value. Being a normative claim ("should"), it can be either true or false. As such, it meets the criteria for a proposition.

It has truth value assuming a cognitivist view you mean?

This is a proposition because it has a truth value. Being a normative claim ("should"), it can be either true or false. — TheMadFool

This is debatable. Some (e.g. non-cognitivists) would understand the sentence "You should love everyone" as the command "love everyone". Commands aren't truth-apt.

You should love everyone is a proposition. But it's not an imperative sentence. "Love everyone" is an imperative sentence, and it is not a proposition.

In English, the imperative sentence starts with a verb, followed by a predicate, and the pronoun of the person of the sentence is never included. The imperative sentence applies only to the second person; both in plural and in singular.

This is also an imperative sentence: — szardosszemagad

You've forgotten your 5th grade grammar. These are sentences, and in this one (and many imperative sentences) the "You," the subject, is understood. Nor is it limited to the second person. And arguably the "should" is understood too - unless you have in mind some way to otherwise compel the love of everyone.

But the arrangement of words is just a sign, evidence of, the imperative v. simple declarative sentence's difference. But neither is in virtue of its being a sentence also a proposition. Propositions are resolvable in terms of truth or falsity, Imperatives are not. And it doesn't matter if there's a minority opinion. People are free (and unfortunately so, in many cases) to construct their own grammars. Usually they do so for very specific purposes. But in any case their variation does not impair the standard.

"You should love everyone" is a proposition. But it's not an imperative sentence. "Love everyone" is an imperative sentence, and it is not a proposition. — szardosszemagad

You're right that "You should love everyone" is not an imperative sentence, and that "Love everyone" is an imperative sentence and not a proposition (if propositions are truth-apt).

Michael's right that it's debatable whether "You should love everyone" is a proposition, at least in the context of metaethics.

In English, the imperative sentence starts with a verb, followed by a predicate, and the pronoun of the person of the sentence is never included. The imperative sentence applies only to the second person; both in plural and in singular. — szardosszemagad

I can't think of an example which doesn't start with a verb, but as for the rest of what you say above, why would you think that? Here are some examples of imperative sentences with personal pronouns in first person and third person: "Pass me the salt", "Hand me my coat", "Give us a hand", "Let him in", "Give them their lifejackets".

And arguably the "should" is understood too - unless you have in mind some way to otherwise compel the love of everyone. — tim wood

That's easy, he already mentioned it: "Love everyone".